I've just now figured it out  the right conservative candidate for these confused and disturbing times. I'm voting for Barry Goldwater, and nothing can stop me. Save  I admit  the inconvenience of Barry's residence in a venue other than the land of the living.

Still, I want to suggest to perplexed conservatives sorting through the credentials of Romney-Huckabee-Giuliani-Thompson-Paul-McCain that no one matches in substance and appeal the man who, in our hearts, we knew to be right: Barry himself. I want to suggest this not by way of whomping up some sentimental pilgrimage back to ye olden tyme. I suggest Barry as a model for the principled conservatism so many seem to seek vainly and despondently. Those Republicans, for instance, who can't figure out what the Republican message is or should be.

"The Republican Party," asserts Rich Lowry of National Review, "has run out of intellectual steam and good ideas." That's a preposterous state of affairs. Good ideas, as opposed to useful legislative enactments, never decline in potency.

Our guy Barry knew as much. Our guy  whom Lyndon Johnson imagined he had disposed of in '64, only to find Barry's ideas taking up more and more space in politics  knew clearly enough what he was about. Freedom was what he was about  "the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order."

That's from p. 13 of "The Conscience of a Conservative," which was the Goldwater movement's philosophical charter. Barry didn't write the book himself. He did something better: He thought it through. He concluded that the challenge for conservatives was "to preserve and extend freedom." He wanted not to expand government but to shrink it. He yearned to hear a presidential candidate say, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden."

Wow! So even young Hillary Rodham must have exclaimed while working as a Goldwater Girl in the '64 campaign  the best thing Mrs. C. ever did, unless she should do a better one by renouncing politics.

How were we going to maximize freedom, Goldwater-style? For one thing, we were going to "make war on all monopolies whether corporate or union." We were going to reduce taxes and spending and wise up the citizen-taxpayer who may have "lost confidence in his claim to his money." Instead of throwing money at education, we were going to "raise standards" and brand "federal intervention in education" as unconstitutional. We were going to maintain not only our military strength but also our resolve to use that strength as the occasion demanded, given that we were "in clear and imminent danger of being overwhelmed by alien forces." (A multi-purpose depiction, that "alien forces" business, even in the post-Soviet era.)

The modern conservative can blow a little dust off "The Conscience of a Conservative"  e.g., the federal government now effectively rules and runs the public schools  while discerning the book's golden thread, which is ordered freedom. Who's ever had a better idea? Not even Ronald Reagan (who made his political mark in a nationally televised speech vainly boosting the Goldwater ticket).

The Goldwater program, shouted down in '64, isn't the point. The point is the ideas behind the program, starting with the notion  which Jefferson and Madison would have endorsed  that government is the means to particular ends, not the end-in-itself, as too many modern presidential candidates seem to imagine.

The straight-on quest for freedom  why wouldn't that resonate far more powerfully than some laundry list of promises and proposals aimed at General Uplift? And what's stopping the present generation of would-be conservative champions from bearing down on that essential point? Don't they care? Because if they do, you can't necessarily tell from watching.

To find out more about William Murchison and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

What a refreshing post! I remember that '64 campaign. I was too young to vote, but I was still out knocking on doors for Barry because "in my heart I knew he was right". I agree with Mr. Murchison completely.

Did not Goldwater lose every state except 1 or 2? Why did he get beat so bad by a centrist democrat?

Personally, my heart yearns for conservatives but my brain pushes me towards a candidate who can win the center. That is where most voters are. 90% of voters never read party platforms or detailed policy statements of candidates. It is who do I like and whom can I trust.

Well, Goldwater carried Arizona, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
He also set tha stage for the rise of the Conservative movement nationally and the eventual takeover of the South by the GOP.
Too bad all of the work done between then and now has been squandered by the limp wristed Girly men who are now once again ascendant in the Republican Party,

A hit piece in a minor paper spewing things that have been disproven over and over as if it is new information. For example: He has said, “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman.” is not a quote from Thompson.

19
posted on 12/23/2007 1:13:37 AM PST
by Ingtar
(The LDS problem that Romney is facing is not his religion, but his recent Liberal Definitive Stands.)

The Goldwater program, shouted down in '64, isn't the point. The point is the ideas behind the program, starting with the notion  which Jefferson and Madison would have endorsed  that government is the means to particular ends, not the end-in-itself, as too many modern presidential candidates seem to imagine.

Unfortunately Government is not about governing it is about power. The bigger the government the more power. Demoncrats know this and love it.

Goldwaters plan to reduce government had a small chance of gaining a foot hold in 1964 when nanny government was in its infancy but today when nanny government is deeply entrenched it has none. Today government is the single largest employer in the country which creates a huge constituency on its own let alone the constituency of the voters that the bureaucracy serves.

Such a platform has little chance of gaining a foot hold with the unaligned voters most of whom never heard of Barry Goldwater or his ideas of "to preserve and extend freedom.".

AS much as I hate it, the world we live in has grown more or less happily dependant on the nanny state. If we intend to regain the majority in the Congress and hold the White House we will have to come to terms with that fact select candidates and run campaigns accordingly.

If we are ever to reduce the tide of ever growing entitlements first we must regain Congress and then educate the public. It will be multi-generational project. The nanny state is 80 years in the making. Dont expect it to go away in a single election.

I have a plastic Barry (in the box) that was stuck to the dashboard of my Dad’s 63.5 Galaxy 500 fastback. It’s about 5 inches tall and he is wearing a cowboy hat. I wish I knew how to post a pic of it.

Mark Levin played about 20 minutes of a Ronaldus Maximus speech given in support of Mr. Goldwater’s 1964 campaign. It was absolutely top-notch. Very original, intellectually powerful, emotionally riveting.

24
posted on 12/23/2007 3:13:19 AM PST
by Steely Tom
(Steely's First Law of the Main Stream Media: if it doesn't advance the agenda, it's not news.)

The signature is somewhat faded, and the picture is a little water damaged. It is still a prized possession. I found it with a Goldwater campaign button and literature in an antique store, and bought the lot for $10.00.

Duncan Hunter is Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan personi-fied. He is full of the truth and has nothing to hide and can beat Hillary or any other *rat the demons put up. He is a dark horse at present because of media bias and wavering handwringing conservatives. At least, consider switching your vote—you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It was really remarkable. Churchillian. At times it was down to earth, a comment on current events or a call to action on behalf of Barry Goldwater. Then it would soar off, with Mr. Reagan giving an eloquant and passionate defense of the very foundations of the West, frequently tying in religion and an awareness of the Almighty. So that was The Speech. I'm glad I was able to hear it, or most of it anyway. I missed Mark Levin's introduction and the first few minutes.

35
posted on 12/24/2007 5:59:52 AM PST
by Steely Tom
(Steely's First Law of the Main Stream Media: if it doesn't advance the agenda, it's not news.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.